Australia Realizes That Including Intellectual Property In Trade Agreements Makes No Sense

from the but-what-about-acta dept

Michael Geist notes that the Australian Government's Productivity Commission (which is apparently an independent research and advisory arm) is suggesting that the government no longer agree to include intellectual property issues in trade agreements -- and specifically focuses on the lack of evidence that such intellectual property agreements benefit Australia economically. It suggests that such agreements should only be allowed "after an economic assessment of the impacts, including on consumers, in Australia and partner countries." In other words, it looks like at least some in Australia are realizing that "faith-based" intellectual property policy-making is a bad idea. In fact, the report notes that most of these agreements appear to benefit a few US companies, but do little to help Australia.

The Commission is not convinced, however, that the approach adopted by Australia in relation to IP in trade agreements has always been in the best interests of either Australia or (most of) its trading partners. Among other things, there does not appear to have been any economic analysis of the specific provisions in AUSFTA undertaken prior to the finalisation of negotiations, nor incorporated in the government’s supporting documentation to the parliament. As noted above, the AUSFTA changes to copyright imposed net costs on Australia, and extending these changes to other countries would be expected to impose net costs on them, principally to the benefit of third parties.

What third parties? That's obvious:

"most of the benefits to IP rights holders from measures to promote adherence to existing rules in partner countries can be expected to accrue to third parties, such as rights holders in the United States."

Of course, Australia is one of the countries involved in ACTA -- which has no such economic analysis. Any chance at all that the Australian government actually listens to the Productivity Commission and requires an economic analysis first? I wouldn't bet on it.

As I understand it, the Productivity Commission are mostly economists. They provide reports on questions requested by Government. They are occasionally listened to. They are more useful for ignoring and putting spin on the results for the electorate.

Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To

Let me clarify what I understand about the US being the nation of thieves (under their own classification that is not mine) If you look at US history with copyright for example, you would realize that the US has actively ignored copyright laws when the majority of copyright was from outside the US. Now that the country has matured on the expense of others, they decided it is time that they strengthen the rules and use them against others. Now, because they are a super power (or is it The super power) of the world, they also decided to impose those rules on everybody else.

Re: Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To

Yes, I am well aware of Australian history. The English sent its overflow of convicts to an island paradise, realised their mistake and many of them moved here themselves. Lots of immigration too.

The AC might have been spouting ignorance about other matters, for example there are a number of people who believe that a Queenslander (aka Assange) "stole" a bunch of embarrassing documents and could be confusing him with the rest of the Australian population.

Australia didn't realize anything. A government Commission suggested that it might not be the best idea. They certainly don't speak for the government, they are just a resource for the government, who can decide to ignore them.

Re:

Re: Re: Remember Why Britain Started Using Australia To Send Its Convicts To

"religious nutters" Australians, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA,, yea right.

Here is an Australian term you should be aware of Mr AC.

"Ya, gotta be fucking jocking mate!!!"

If you are so aware of Australia, and its history, maybe you should state what range of crimes those people were convicted of when they were sent out here ?

Religious nutters, ?? I wonder if you know what percentage of US citizens believe in the literal word of the bible ?

You know, creation, and evolution and so on.. then check out how many Aussies, are "religious nutters"..

Yes, Australians, will usually go to church maybe 3 times in their life (if they are unlucky) that is when they are cristened, when they get married, and when they die.

You need to buy a clue...

which is apparently an independent research and advisory arm

it cannot be independent and "an arm" at the same time, so apparently its not what you state.

Is it ONLY and advisory committee, they have no power to make decision, and can only offer advice, the government is in no way required to follow that advice. And that advice in no way reflects the opinion of the government.

so they have no teeth, they can only advise, and their advise is often ignored, if it is not what the government deside to do.

Re: Re:

Re:

nice troll attempt. well worded with enough spin involved to not exactly be flagrantly false, but still sow enough seeds of dobut in a readers mind. ill go ahead and give you a 7.5/10 on this one.

having said that, the correct information is that the productivity commission is "the Australian Government's independent research and advisory body on a range of economic, social and environmental issues" (quote taken directly from their website) which makes it part of the government and thus does, in fact, speak for the government on issues. that is not to say that it sets rules or has any oversight towards enforcement and yes the "the government" can choose to ignore its findings much in the same way the current administrative branch can ignore findings from FCC reports. ignoring these reports does not make either entity any less a part of the government.

with that in mind, one could make the arguement that the headline is misleading, but realistically only if you choose to ignore any of the rest of the article and make assumptions about it without actually reading and putting things in context.

Re: Re:

It is part of the government, but a report written by a few people who do work for the government does not as a result conclude that an entire country has suddenly "realized" anything. Rather, it is a report amongst many that the government will look at (and often put on the shelf and ignore).

The post is more or less an attempt to create the appearance of wide support where there is none. At some point in the future, this post will be linked from another story with the "Australia has already realizes that", when it isn't true. It is entirely misleading, but the TD sheeple will fall for it.